At 06:42 PM 9/21/07 -0000, "colette" <ksheri3@...
>Let me make sense of this in my way, which generally comes through
>repeating the question or statement.
Quoting in small doses and paraphrasing often help. Quoting in large doses
is another matter entirely.
>colette: gotcha The category refered to as Buddhist or Buddhism has
>been enlarged upon and no longer can be specifically defined through
>a single sect within buddhism.
Possibly, it never could. Every town likes things its way. The same is
true of other human groupings. In a room of students, there are often as
many theories of the teacher's lesson as there are students.
>colette: honestly, I'm acquiring a very similar taste since most of
>my posts are not really and truely read by the person commenting on
>what I've said. I'm quite aware of what I say and am VERY DELIBERATE
>a lot of times in making damned sure that I've used the correct words
>that open my conclusions up to debate since the reader has gone off
>some where on a delusional fantasy which is filled with nothing more
No matter how precise the writing, it gets filtered. The filtration is
sometimes via competing "noise" or skipping through inattention. More
often it is style and interest driven. For that matter, I often write in a
layered manner, using ambiguity and modes of focus to say several different
things at once. The surface or literal meaning is always the first and
primary, but many people prefer one of the under-meanings, intended or not,
really present or not.
When I read something of length, I filter points of view as well as
direct substance. There may be too much to respond without writing a
largish book. There may be matter of little interest to me. I simply
choose what I will engage. I'm not under contract to fulfill all questions
with answers or to point out every instance of pants around shoes. It's a
sort of conversation, not a legal cross-examination. The pleasure often
comes from the random element, of where the chat is going.
>colette: NOW YOU'RE WAY OFF BASE. Kundalini is a Tantra, a vehicle
>for higher states of consciousness. The union of Shiva and Shakti
>above the Crown shakra is it's culmination.
It's rather more than that, in the sense of varieties and complexities.
>To achieve this the lower
>chakras have to be opened and their fruitition exposed, blossomed.
The sequence is also important, with some sequences reaching dead ends,
some going through by different means and so forth. The bonts are
important. Frankly, in regard to the Chakras and the OTO degrees, I'm
quite confident that Crowley got it upside-down. His remarks of the
correspondence are only known in a marginal note in one copy of the
Equinox. Since Crowley did not design the initiation system of OTO
himself, he may have gotten it inverted by trying to follow up a hint from
Reuss. On the other hand, he may have very well known the proper sequence,
one of the most familiar for Kundalini going all the way. His manner of
writing notes often got lost in the scribbles and the after-thoughts.
Fortunately, the initiation rituals work by impact, not by the explanation
of even so notable a writer as Crowley. Examining such details of
Kundalini as that works very well with the Tree of Life matrix.
>The action which is Kundalini does not translate directly to the Tree
>of Life since the Tree is a static object. Your reference to Tikkun
>is well taken, below, and I'll be addressing this when I get there.
I agree that it does not conformally map to the Tree, but the Tree of Life
is very far from entirely static. There are ten static states, after a
fashion, the Sephirot. There are 22 active transitions, the letter-paths.
Beyond that, the arrangements of Sephirot and their interactions change, as
do the paths as the function on the Tree changes. Even with the standard
"Kircher" Tree, there are sixteen additional paths possible but not shown,
beyond the 22. Depending on the state of the mind depicted on the Tree,
when the Tree is used to depict a mind, the 22 visible paths may not all be
present or they may shift in part to some of the 16 "invisible" -- the
dynamic will change. There's much more to that...
>colette: I don't see how you can cramm the activity of the Kundalini
>onto a static tree since there's very little activity on the Tree
>other than the Tikkun or mission to repair the face of god.
The activity fits better than the Chakras. Tikkun is one of many
activities on the Tree, and not the type that moves the most.
>colette: thanx for the history lesson. It's been my interpretation
>since 2004 that Rab. Isaac Luria was the originator of the kabbalah
>in Safed where he ran into some hoods named Mohammed and Kordovero,
>et al. Since you've given rise to kabbalah pre-Luria I can see that
>when I eventually get back to Western traditions I'll have far more
>to review. ...
Kabbalah really arose three centuries or more earlier than Luria, in Spain.
Before that, going back as far into antiquity as we have Jewish texts, the
anticedents of Kabbalah existed. These include Merkabah, Chokmah Nestora,
Ras, Sod, and more. "Kabbalah" is really the term applied to the
resurgence of these things in medieval Spain, as well as what came from that.
>> A very different idea. The adaptation of illusion by Buddhists
>> religions has to do with fundamental nature of being.
>colette: glad you said that, it reframes several concepts better for
>me. I have trouble translating Indian Svabhava into or onto other
Always remember "No, not that".
>colette: ... Typical though, not even my
>Jewish friends talk this deeply of their faith.
Maybe they didn't get it in Schul. Maybe they never went. :-)
>the Qlipot, is something that blinds, distorts, and misleads,
>individuals into their own folly and foolish behaviors where the
>individuals easily fall prey to natural forces.
The idea is clear enough, even without the "broken pot" metaphor. If you
name negative spirits after vices and human failings, as is often done
either directly or indirectly through mythology, you personify problems.
Since many of these problems have their part in the human personality, that
often gives a grip where cold reason slips. Buddhism also uses the idea of
mending these damaged or wayward ones. When Monkey was mostly set right,
Piggie could be helped too. Monkey was not perfectly set right, for he
rejected the first giving of the scrolls and went back for "the right
ones". He did not understand that those first, blank scrolls (or palm leaf
books, more likely) were the true ones. Moses set up his law because the
people needed it in the state they possessed, not because law is right and
true in essence. Illusion battles illusion. Half revealed and half
concealed -- and the discussions here are often after the concealed part of
Liber AL. If the work on the concealed often turns into work on conceited
instead, that's just another Qlipot to be glued back together.